Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 79

Thread: New T-Mobile LTE Comparison Map

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,858
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by jet1000 View Post
    By definition, it is their business. That is their jurisdiction. If you don't like it, don't buy land in that jurisdiction in the first place. There's plenty of land in this country where you can build all of the towers you want and nobody will say anything.
    I respectfully disagree with the idea that control of our lives and property are "by definition" the business of those who rule. The only "definition" that matters is the Constitution, and it contradicts this idea. One would hope that the pendulum starts to tip toward the rights of the people and away from the rights of the rulers.

    If one does not like unwarranted government intrusion into their personal affairs, they can indeed leave. Or, better yet, they can fight back and sue and prevail. Thankfully, the latter does happen sometimes.

    As for building towers where "nobody will say anything" there's power-hungry megalomaniacs who will complain everywhere you go.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    14,505
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I respectfully disagree with the idea that control of our lives and property are "by definition" the business of those who rule. The only "definition" that matters is the Constitution, and it contradicts this idea.
    If you want to go to the Constitution, the tenth amendment says:

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

    The people have full right to form county governments and city governments as they see fit. And thus they have the right to permit or deny cell towers as they see fit. You can either participate in those governments or as I stated previously, move somewhere else. There is a lot of land that doesn't fall under a municipality and such a place may suit you better.

    But when you make comments such as: "I hope there is a court case one day to stop over-reaching governments from interfering with people's property rights this way," you're the one who clearly is opposed to the powers of smaller governments that is granted to the people by the Constitution. You want a judge to push aside decisions by elected officials and rule in favor of what you believe. I don't recall such a thing discussed in the tenth amendment.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,178
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Bob, the hundred million was for ALL US customers of all carriers. But I way undercounted, didn't I?
    Haha, ok, but technically you were correct 410 million is one million plus.

    410 Million doesn't mean that all of those are regular handset subscribers. Some of them are Internet of Things and Machine to Machine lines, like alarm systems, connected cars, GPS dog collars, etc.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,178
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
    I had discussions with people that where vehement that cell phones and cell towers are cancerigene. But they happily heat their food in microwave owens and... God forbid to cut off their WiFi signal!
    It's like a religious belief.
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local zoning authorities from denial of site approval based on RF emissions if the licensee has complied with the FCC regulations concerning RF emissions. This is not well known to the general public. You can bet that the telcom lawyers know it very well. This is good thing to keep the tinfoil hat brigade from ruining things for everyone else.

    There is also a single line, snuck into the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that has nothing to do with jobs. It states that local governments may not deny and shall approve any qualifying request to install cell phone towers.

    Local zoning authorities can still deny sites for many dumb reasons.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,858
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local zoning authorities from denial of site approval based on RF emissions if the licensee has complied with the FCC regulations concerning RF emissions. This is not well known to the general public. You can bet that the telcom lawyers know it very well. This is good thing to keep the tinfoil hat brigade from ruining things for everyone else.

    There is also a single line, snuck into the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that has nothing to do with jobs. It states that local governments may not deny and shall approve any qualifying request to install cell phone towers.

    Local zoning authorities can still deny sites for many dumb reasons.
    There was a situation in my area where someone wanted to put a Verizon tower on his land. A neighbor didn't like it, so he filed frivolous lawsuits and even erected multiple billboards (with poorly written messages) opposing it. He even had an apopleptic web site registered under a domain name he purchased. Sanity and basic rights prevailed: the government ignored the kook and approved the tower (or refused to block it). In a more just world, there would be something ranging from fines to jail time to prevent such harassment and frivolous lawsuits.

    But too often justice is no where to be seen in a world where someone spills hot coffee in their lap, files a frivolous lawsuit and has lawyers lie in court. and gets rich from it.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,858
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    Haha, ok, but technically you were correct 410 million is one million plus.

    410 Million doesn't mean that all of those are regular handset subscribers. Some of them are Internet of Things and Machine to Machine lines, like alarm systems, connected cars, GPS dog collars, etc.
    I meant that there are hundreds of millions of cell customers who might want accurate coverage maps (from any/all companies).

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,348
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by formercanuck View Post
    The old maps are still there... You have to find it through the FAQ on the new map
    is this what you're referring to? It is better, but can't zoom in, to say a city/region, since it's a static image.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    15,355
    Device(s)
    Moto G7 Power, Nexus 5X
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, PagePlus
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    I just drove from Huntington, WV down US-23 to Johnson City, TN. T-Mobile's map shows this route as covered, except for a few small areas. This can only be described as a bald faced lie. Most of the route in in Kentucky. There was AT&T roaming for about the first 30 miles down 23, then nothing. There were a couple of brief periods of native service then nothing. You don't pick up service again until Virginia. I mapped the route with CellMapper T-Mobile needs to unblock roaming on AT&T LACs #15930 & #16935 to say this route is covered in any way, shape or form.
    Donald Newcomb

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,500
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9
    Carrier(s)
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdevnul View Post
    The Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits local zoning authorities from denial of site approval based on RF emissions if the licensee has complied with the FCC regulations concerning RF emissions. This is not well known to the general public. You can bet that the telcom lawyers know it very well. This is good thing to keep the tinfoil hat brigade from ruining things for everyone else.

    There is also a single line, snuck into the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that has nothing to do with jobs. It states that local governments may not deny and shall approve any qualifying request to install cell phone towers.

    Local zoning authorities can still deny sites for many dumb reasons.
    I've seen the Middle Class act mentioned by a lawyer in one of our planning board meetings and even though he was correct it didn't sound any less goofy to hear. The lawyers we're working with are definitely getting good mileage out of it though.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4,178
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by JimMcGraff View Post
    I've seen the Middle Class act mentioned by a lawyer in one of our planning board meetings and even though he was correct it didn't sound any less goofy to hear. The lawyers we're working with are definitely getting good mileage out of it though.
    There is a lot of wiggle room for interpretation of what qualifying requests means. As a previous president famously said, "It all depends on what the meaning of is is."

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles/Canada
    Posts
    11,103
    Device(s)
    LG G7 (T-Mobile), iPhone 8 (AT&T)
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile, AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Qt0 View Post
    is this what you're referring to? It is better, but can't zoom in, to say a city/region, since it's a static image.
    At the bottom right of the 'new' map there is a 'FAQ' link which has list of items. One is 'How can I see more details about T-Mobile's Coverage' with a link
    https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage-ma...LUTS9K5SFI7718

    This will bring you back to the 'traditional' map.
    AT&T... your world, throttled.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    103
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    There was a situation in my area where someone wanted to put a Verizon tower on his land. A neighbor didn't like it, so he filed frivolous lawsuits and even erected multiple billboards (with poorly written messages) opposing it. He even had an apopleptic web site registered under a domain name he purchased. Sanity and basic rights prevailed: the government ignored the kook and approved the tower (or refused to block it). In a more just world, there would be something ranging from fines to jail time to prevent such harassment and frivolous lawsuits.

    But too often justice is no where to be seen in a world where someone spills hot coffee in their lap, files a frivolous lawsuit and has lawyers lie in court. and gets rich from it.
    You do know the person who won big for the coffee spilled on their cup was because of mcdonald's rules stating that coffee should be somewhere around 180 degrees, which is insanely hot for coffee, and most places are somewhere around 140 degrees or somewhere in that area.

    Basically the woman ****ed up, but mcdonalds was serving extremely hot coffee for no reason. Mcdonalds also had a history of issues with their coffee being far too hot, and they ignored/settled all those and just did nothing about it.

    At the end of the day, mcdonalds was stupid and gave out coffee that was insanely hot for absolutely no reason or need. And the woman is an idiot for spilling coffee on herself.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,986
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Bkayrac View Post
    You do know the person who won big for the coffee spilled on their cup was because of mcdonald's rules stating that coffee should be somewhere around 180 degrees, which is insanely hot for coffee, and most places are somewhere around 140 degrees or somewhere in that area.

    Basically the woman ****ed up, but mcdonalds was serving extremely hot coffee for no reason. Mcdonalds also had a history of issues with their coffee being far too hot, and they ignored/settled all those and just did nothing about it.

    At the end of the day, mcdonalds was stupid and gave out coffee that was insanely hot for absolutely no reason or need. And the woman is an idiot for spilling coffee on herself.
    I saw the story on this.

    She was very elderly. The coffee was so hot it burned layers of skin off her "personal," areas causing the poor lady horrific pain and complications even near death. She was a sweet, gentle, humble, old lady, never sued anyone or anything in her life... someone's grandma... She's since passed away.

    She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills which amounted over $10k and to regulate their coffee serving temperature. McDonald's refused time and time again and tried to settle by offering an $800 check. That's when her family stepped in on her behalf and took the legal route.

    For years I thought that this story was about some random weasel trying to pull one over a big corporation. After seeing the story in depth I've softened my stance although I'm sure her grandkids have benefited from the payout as would anyone in receipt of such funds.
    “The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    103
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I saw the story on this.

    She was very elderly. The coffee was so hot it burned layers of skin off her "personal," areas causing the poor lady horrific pain and complications even near death. She was a sweet, gentle, humble, old lady, never sued anyone or anything in her life... someone's grandma... She's since passed away.

    She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills which amounted over $10k and to regulate their coffee serving temperature. McDonald's refused time and time again and tried to settle by offering an $800 check. That's when her family stepped in on her behalf and took the legal route.

    For years I thought that this story was about some random weasel trying to pull one over a big corporation. After seeing the story in depth I've changed my mind completely.
    Worked a coffee shop for a time when I was younger.......180 is insane, literally there is no need for it to even be close to that temp for a pot of coffee, literally nuts. To put that into perspective for those that don't know as well.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,632
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile
    Feedback Score
    0
    vBActivity - Stats
    vBActivity - Bars
    Quote Originally Posted by Bkayrac View Post
    You do know the person who won big for the coffee spilled on their cup was because of mcdonald's rules stating that coffee should be somewhere around 180 degrees, which is insanely hot for coffee, and most places are somewhere around 140 degrees or somewhere in that area.

    Basically the woman ****ed up, but mcdonalds was serving extremely hot coffee for no reason. Mcdonalds also had a history of issues with their coffee being far too hot, and they ignored/settled all those and just did nothing about it.

    At the end of the day, mcdonalds was stupid and gave out coffee that was insanely hot for absolutely no reason or need. And the woman is an idiot for spilling coffee on herself.
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I saw the story on this.

    She was very elderly. The coffee was so hot it burned layers of skin off her "personal," areas causing the poor lady horrific pain and complications even near death. She was a sweet, gentle, humble, old lady, never sued anyone or anything in her life... someone's grandma... She's since passed away.

    She asked McDonald's to pay her medical bills which amounted over $10k and to regulate their coffee serving temperature. McDonald's refused time and time again and tried to settle by offering an $800 check. That's when her family stepped in on her behalf and took the legal route.

    For years I thought that this story was about some random weasel trying to pull one over a big corporation. After seeing the story in depth I've softened my stance although I'm sure her grandkids have benefited from the payout as would anyone in receipt of such funds.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bkayrac View Post
    Worked a coffee shop for a time when I was younger.......180 is insane, literally there is no need for it to even be close to that temp for a pot of coffee, literally nuts. To put that into perspective for those that don't know as well.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
    I hate this story - the woman was 100% at fault.

    She pulled over, put the cup in her own lap - she's obviously older so most likely her dexterity is compromised to begin with. It spills on her and again, because she's older and confined in a small space, cannot get the hot liquid/clothing off her. How was McDonald's in any way liable for this? The fact she was 'old' and hadn't done this before doesn't change anything.

    Coffee was too hot - right. What temp was it at? The correct temp to serve it and not make people wait. Have you been to a McDonalds? They brew the coffee and pull the pot off and dump it into a cup instantly.

    http://www.ncausa.org/About-Coffee/How-to-Brew-Coffee

    Let's see what the specialist say above. Coffee should be brewed as close to possible to right under boiling, but at least 195 degrees. It even specifically says wait until your beverage is around 140 to enjoy. So, does McDonald's need to hand hold folks to not dump near boiling liquids down their threats (or place them near body parts for that matter?)

    It would be the same as suing Budweiser for drunk drivers getting hurt or others hurt. It's asinine. I have a family and friends. A friend was killed by a drunk driver - my thought nor his family's thoughts weren't to go after alcohol companies. It was the person who sought out the drink. McDonald's enabled this women to injure herself in no more of a way than Budweiser does when someone gets hurt from drinking.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-13-2015, 05:40 PM
  2. New T Mobile Coverage Maps
    By jctusa7 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-18-2013, 10:37 AM
  3. New Public Mobile Cell Tower Map
    By loxcel in forum Public Mobile
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 12:35 AM
  4. new versions of these comparison maps?
    By joepoid in forum AT&T
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-22-2004, 10:51 PM
  5. New T-mobile/Voicestream Coverage map
    By frangus in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-14-2002, 09:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks